You can discount the importance of eugenics all you want, but the FACT still remains that it is at the core of Darwinism. The Darwin family DEVELOPED IT.
I know that Creationists have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for arguments - this article is a claptrap of appeal to consequences and guilt by association. Moreover the assoication is constructed via complete historic ignorance.
Why are evolutionists so adverse to discussing eugenics?
Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of the God that created it.
Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of Lysenko and a Lamarkian mechanism.
They MAY have rejected evolution, but they embraced eugenics and eugenics IS Darwinism just as much as evolution is. We are talking about Darwinism here, NOT botany. Stalin may have overlooked Lysenko's crop failure, but he compensated for it by KILLING those he considered lesser peoples.
You can argue against the above two FACTS as much as you want - but all it does is make you look ignorant and deranged.
What FACTS? Akton T-4 and mandatory sterilization are things that eugenicists dream about.
Is Darwin-ism any different to you than Lamarkian-ism?
Eugenics existed as a pattern of thought long before Darwin formulated his theory - many people assumed that humans could be selectively bred for desired traits and that undesirable traits should be eliminated. Darwin's theory gave a veneer of scientific respectability to the field that was undeserved - but they glommed onto anyone with the NAME of Darwin to try to prop up this association.
I am not at all adverse to discussing eugenics. I believe I stated clearly the problem with eugenics, that being their basic misunderstanding that a ‘central planner’ is not more responsive and productive than millions of independent actors in pursuit of their own interests.
Eugenics is not Darwin's theory. Eugenics is not evolutionary biology. Eugenics is not accepted by the vast majority of those who accept Darwin's theory. Advocacy of eugenics is not dependent upon acceptance of Darwin's theory - many advocated eugenics using different rationalizations.
So still no evidence that Stalin ever recommended someone read Darwin. Yet you base SO MUCH of your argument on that little bit of fluff.
The FACTS are that Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God - and that the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism.
Lies about historic facts do not advance the Creationist argument.
When Creationists make these arguments it shows just how desperate they are that they have to make up lies just to make an illogical argument of guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.